August 21, 2025
On August 15, Governor Pritzker signed into law House Bill 1842 expanding the powers of administrative law judges in local administrative code enforcement adjudications.
Section 1-2.1-4 of the Illinois Municipal Code previously limited administrative law judges to order fines only to garner compliance with local municipal codes.
Under House Bill 1842, Section 1-2.1-4(b)(6) of the Illinois Municipal Code now authorizes administrative law judges to “enter orders prohibiting further code violations or compelling the remediation of existing code violations within a specified time and authorizing the municipality to take all necessary steps to remediate code violations.”
Municipalities with a system of administrative adjudication, where fines alone have not achieved compliance, especially in building and property maintenance violation cases, now have an additional enforcement tool — injunctive relief and the authority to remediate the violations.
While municipalities previously had the authority to secure liens against private property for unpaid municipal judgments, municipalities have not in all instances had the authority to remediate code violations themselves. For instance, under Section 11-20-7 of the Illinois Municipal Code, municipalities have the authority to cut overgrown weeds on a property where the municipality has enacted an ordinance to prevent the nuisance and place a lien on the property for costs. Municipalities also have existing statutory authority to abate other nuisances on private property such as pests and trees infected by the Dutch Elm disease.
Where properties need repair for minor code violations, such as chipped paint, broken windows, and other minor offenses, the Illinois Municipal Code did not previously provide a mechanism for municipalities to remedy these offenses where the owner refused or was otherwise non-compliant with local administrative orders. Furthermore, in all instances where a property owner previously refused to allow a municipality to enter upon its property to effectuate an administrative judgment, such as the abatement of weeds, the municipality had to resort to the circuit court to obtain an administrative warrant to enter upon the property to perform the remediation.
While not explicitly stated, the new legislative amendment appears to authorize remediation by a municipality when a property owner fails to comply without the need to apply to the circuit court for an administrative warrant to enter upon the property. The words “all necessary steps” in the amendment suggests that this new enforcement power now exists. However, House Bill 1842 is silent on whether municipalities may recover their costs for remediation even when ordered to do so by the administrative law judge.
While the new amendment has clearly broadened the authority for administrative law judges to compel compliance with local ordinances, there are some important considerations for municipalities.
First, even though the new amendment may authorize entry upon private property, where there is reason to believe that a property owner will be especially contentious, it is still advisable to consider the matter for circuit court where judges have wider authority, including powers to hold defendants in contempt of court for failure to comply with court orders.
Second, administrative judgment liens do not necessarily take priority over other liens already placed upon the property, like a first mortgage.
Finally, attorneys’ fees and litigation costs are not typically recoverable under administrative actions. They are, however, recoverable under the Illinois Unsafe Properties Act (65 ILCS 5/11-31-1 and 11-31-2), but these actions must be brought in circuit court. Municipal liens brought in circuit court under the Unsafe Properties Act are also first priority over other liens, including mortgages (but not tax liens).
The new amendment does not go into effect until January 1, 2026. In light of these changes, municipalities should carefully review their codes to ensure alignment with the newly-granted authority to remediate. For instance, municipalities should consider adopting ordinances for the recovery of costs associated with remediation ordered in administrative hearings. Ultimately, municipalities will have to develop internal protocols to determine which municipal code violations are now more suitable for the administrative hearings process versus circuit court. Considerations may include whether a particular code violation remediation will be too costly for the municipality to abate without a more favorable opportunity to recover under a first-priority lien, whether a property owner will be particularly contentious requiring the contempt powers granted to circuit court judges, and finally, whether a municipality wants to recover attorneys’ fees and costs.
Please contact Kelley Gandurski or any Elrod Friedman attorney to discuss further these important enforcement matters.